"To call appropriation of an art form through examples that were done by humans, and then call it generational, [that] is what I don't conceive. I think there may be cases in which scientists and practitioners of any discipline raised their hand and said, 'Could you give us AI?' Maybe. I don't think any artist raised their hand and said, 'Could you get us AI?' I don't think so."
"I think the real barrier is if a society ends up making songs written by AI thrive, then that society without a doubt deserves songs written by AI," he says. "I don't think that will happen. I think that you listen to Paul McCartney and John Lennon, and you know John Lennon lost his mother to a traffic accident. You listen to [Bob] Dylan and you know that Dylan crossed the chasm between folk and rock had his own peril -"
Generative AI in art vandalizes the fact that art without pain is illustration. AI can be useful in law, engineering, and chemistry because those fields have finite algorithmic data points such as laws, case studies, or anatomical nodes. Appropriation of art by training on human-created examples and labeling it generational is rejected. Artists did not request AI to replace creative practice. If society allows AI-written songs to thrive, that society merits them; authentic music derives from life and biography, exemplified by Paul McCartney, John Lennon, and Bob Dylan's real-life losses and trials.
Read at Consequence
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]